The fully audited global figures for Sunday’s match will not be known for some time but broadcasters are already optimistic that the numbers may approach or even surpass the 909 million who watched the Spain v Netherlands final in 2010.

Sean Brown, a post-doctoral fellow at Harvard who has studied the sociology of sports, detected a distinct shift in the American media narrative during the World Cup. In previous tournaments, he said, the attitude of the US press had changed “from ‘this is an event that no-one cares about’ to ‘this is an event that we kinda care about’.” He told the Guardian that during this year’s tournament, the narrative shifted to “this is finally the moment that soccer is making it; this is the tipping point”.

Brown agreed about the coming audience drop, but thought this would be largely a good thing. “As I see it,” he said, “soccer is growing slowly, and that’s the right way for it to grow permanently. I don’t think the MLS will see a large ratings boost based on World Cup numbers. But the MLS is growing anyway.”

Dan Courtemanche is executive vice-president of Major League Soccer, and has been with the organisation for 16 out of its 19 seasons. He points to figures by Scarborough research that show support for league soccer in the US almost doubling since 2006, from 48 million to 70 million.

Germany: an all-time-high audience of 41.89 million viewers tuned in to watch their national team win the World Cup (86.3% share). An online survey conducted on early Sunday evening suggested that an additional 12 million Germans cheered the game in a public space.

Belgium: the TV viewing record set during the match against South Korea was broken during the Red Devils’ win over the US team. It became the most watched football match in the history of Belgian television with 5.5 million viewers (85% TV audience).

The Netherlands: the semi-final against Argentina has set a new record of 12.4 million viewers including out-of-home viewing (89.3% share). The game triggered 158,192 tweets.

France: the 0-1 win for Germany reached an audience of 16.9 million people (72.1% share). The game scored more than one million related tweets.

Sweden: the final game was the most viewed match of the World Cup 2014 with 2.58 million viewers (73.84% share)

Poland: the final achieved the biggest Polish TV audience since 2012: 10.56 million (63.43% share).

Portugal: the match against the US attracted 3.6 million viewers (75.4% share). It was the second most viewed broadcast in Portugal since March 2012.

Hungary: the final attracted 1.86 million Hungarians to their TV screens (47.8% share).

Austria: whereas Brazil’s defeat by Germany was watched by 1.36 million viewers (52% audience share), the final game reached a record audience of 1.81 million viewers (55.3% making it the highest rated football in Austria since the Euro 2008.

Ireland: the final scored a TV audience of 857,000 people (55.73% share) and the total world cup triggered 2.5 million online streams. Looking specifically at adults 15-34, the final also ranks as the number one programme this year to-date across all channels.

Italy: the Uruguay game reached a total of 19.19 million viewers (81.5% share).

Romania: the highest TV audience share for this World Cup was reported for the final match: 43%.

Argentina: 63.7% of the Argentinian TV audience watched their national team being defeated by Germany in the finals.

Global trends in policy and technology related fields are rapidly reshaping the port industry worldwide. International in scope, this volume provides multidisciplinary insights into the role port cities adopt in dealing with global supply chains. Throughout the book, concepts of strategic management, supply chain management, port and transport economics and economic and transport geography are applied to offer an in-depth understanding of the processes underlying global supply chains and associated spatial and functional dynamics in port-cities. The book also discusses policy outcomes and implications relevant to port-cities positioned in different segments of global supply chains.

Abstract. A large micro literature has documented the local forces leading to growth and decline of cities. This paper measures the consequences of these local forces on aggregate output and welfare. We use a Rosen-Roback model of urban growth to show that a summary statistic for the aggregate effect of local growth (decline) is whether it shows up as an increase (decrease) in local employment or as an increase (decrease) in the nominal wage relative to other cities. Differences in the nominal wage across cities reflect differences in the marginal product of labor across cities which, ceteris paribus, lower aggregate output. We show that the dispersion of the average nominal wage across US cities increased from 1964 to 2009 and may be responsible for a 13% decline in aggregate output. Changes in amenities appear to account for only a small fraction of this output loss, with most of the loss likely caused by increased constraints to housing supply in highly productive cities. We conclude that welfare gains from spatial reallocation of the US labor force are likely to be substantial

Extractos.

Our starting point is the observation that if labor is significantly more productive in some areas than in others, then aggregate output may be increased by reallocating some workers from low productivity areas to high productivity ones. For example, in 2009 average nominal wages in San Jose, CA and Boston, MA were twice as large as nominal wages in Brownsville, TX and Flint, MI, after conditioning on education and demographics, presumably because the marginal product of labor in San Jose and Boston is twice as large. If some workers were moved from Brownsville and Flint to San Jose or Boston, U.S. GDP would increase, because more workers would have access to whatever productive factor generates high productivity in San Jose and Boston. To maximize aggregate output, one would need to continue reallocating workers until the marginal product of labor and nominal wages are equalized across cities. But of course, the potential output gains do not necessarily translate into welfare gains. The implications for welfare hinge upon the reasons why wages are not equalized across cities in the first place.

…

These output effects are driven by two broad regional trends. On the one hand, six cities that we will call “innovation clusters” — New York, Washington, Boston, San Francisco, San Jose and Seattle — experienced some of the strongest growth in labor demand over the last four decades, but most of the labor demand was manifested as higher nominal wages (Moretti, 2012) instead of higher employment. On the other hand, Southern cities have also experienced rapid output growth, but most of this growth showed up as employment growth and only a small amount as an increase in the nominal wage. Since wages in Sun Belt cities were generally below the nationwide average in 1964, the growth in nominal wages in these cities lowered overall wage dispersion. The effect of wage growth in the Southern cities is smaller than the effect of higher wage dispersion driven by higher nominal wages in the innovation clusters, but the increase in overall wage dispersion from 1964 to 2009 would have been even larger if it had not been for the Southern cities.

…

In the final part of the paper we turn to welfare. Why is US labor not flowing to high TFP cities to the point that wages are equalized across cities?

…

If the relative increase in nominal wages in high TFP cities such as San Francisco and New York is due to increased restrictions to housing supply, then the aggregate output loss due to differences in the marginal product of labor also imply welfare losses. In this case, removing constraint to housing supply in cities like San Francisco and New York would allow more workers to move there and take advantage of their higher productivity, pushing down local wages and increasing both aggregate output and welfare. In contrast, if labor supply in New York and San Francisco is low because of undesirable local amenities, then the loss in aggregate output from the gaps in the marginal product of labor does not necessarily reflect a decline in welfare. For example, if equilibrium nominal wages in New York are high because people dislike congestion noise and pollution and need to be compensated for it, then moving more people to New York will increase aggregate output, but will lower welfare.

…

In contrast, increasing the elasticity of housing supply in New York, Washington, Boston, San Francisco, San Jose and Seattle by 25% (a large increase) would reduce dispersion in nominal wages and increase U.S. output, accounting for the majority of the output gains in our counterfactual.

The proposed projects include the implementation of special economic zones (SEZs) which will be developed at Kandla Port (Gujarat) and Jawaharlal Nehru Port (Mumbay)

“A policy for encouraging the growth of Indian controlled tonnage will be formulated to ensure an increase in employment of the Indian seafarers; development of ports is critical for boosting trade,” Jaitley told the lower-house of India’s parliament, as he presented the Union Budget.

India Today reported that the finance minister has pledged to allocate US$1.93 billion for the primary stage of an outer-harbour project in Tuticorin.

Additionally, Jaitley proposed an allocation of US$700 million for a project to develop inland waterways which has been titled ‘Jal Marg Vikas’.

The Think Tanks and Civil Societies Program (TTCSP) at the University of Pennsylvania conducts research on the role policy institutes play in governments and civil societies around the world. Often referred to as the “think tanks’ think tank,” TTCSP examines the evolving role and character of public policy research organizations. Over the last 25 years, the TTCSP has developed and led a series of global initiatives that have helped bridge the gap between knowledge and policy in critical policy areas such as international peace and security, globalization and governance, international economics, environmental issues, information and society, poverty alleviation, and healthcare and global health. These international collaborative efforts are designed to establish regional and international networks of policy institutes and communities that improve policy making while strengthening democratic institutions and civil societies around the world.

The TTCSP works with leading scholars and practitioners from think tanks and universities in a variety of collaborative efforts and programs, and produces the annual Global Go To Think Tank Index that ranks the world’s leading think tanks in a variety of categories. This is achieved with the help of a panel of over 1,900 peer institutions and experts from the print and electronic media, academia, public and private donor institutions, and governments around the world. We have strong relationships with leading think tanks around the world, and our annual Think Tank Index is used by academics, journalists, donors and the public to locate and connect with the leading centers of public policy research around the world. Our goal is to increase the profile and performance of think tanks and raise the public awareness of the important role think tanks play in governments and civil societies around the globe

Since its inception in 1989, the TTCSP has focused on collecting data and conducting research on think tank trends and the role think tanks play as civil society actors in the policymaking process. In 2007, the TTCSP developed and launched the global index of think tanks, which is designed to identify and recognize centers of excellence in all the major areas of public policy research and in every region of the world. To date TTCSP has provided technical assistance and capacity building programs in 81 countries. We are now working to create regional and global networks of think tanks in an effort to facilitate collaboration and the production of a modest yet achievable set of global public goods. Our goal is to create lasting institutional and state-level partnerships by engaging and mobilizing think tanks that have demonstrated their ability to produce high quality policy research and shape popular and elite opinion and actions for public good

No tienen Think Tanks o no los han encontrado en: We have not been able to identify any think tanks operation in the following countries: Brunei, Macao, Turkmenistan, Monaco, San Marino, Anguila, Aruba, the British Virgin Islands, the Cayman Islands, French Guinea, Montserrat, the Turks and Caicos Islands, the Comoros, Sao Tome and Principe, Kiribati, the Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Nauru, Palau, the Solomon Islands, Tonga, Tuvalu, and Vanuatu. Salvo los dos que he señalado, no me sorprende.

Terms and conditions: 1. Any commenter of this blog agrees to transfer the copy right of his comments to the blogger. 2. RSS readers and / or aggregators that captures the content of this blog (posts or comments) are forbidden. These actions will be subject to the DMCA notice-and-takedown rules and will be legally pursued by the proprietor of the blog. Cancelar respuesta